Clean, Space Shuttle mission ! Liberals bummed out.....

On 6 Aug 2006 17:54:37 -0700, in a place far, far away,
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a
way as to indicate that:

Sorry, but we invaded Iraq for many reasons. One rhetorical slip up
doesn't change that.



And what "many reasons" are those? Because
we owed it to the Iraqi people? Because of Bush's
abiding need to enforce UN sanctions (but only
if they involve countries with lots of oil)?
9/11? An "Osama Got Away" distraction?

Because once Bush realized there weren't any "new facilities" making
weapons that could "attack us in 45 minutes," he had to come up with
other points to justify invasion.

Nonsense. There were many reasons to invade Iraq, stated prior to the
invasion. Just go read the 2003 State of the Union address.

But them, rewriting history is one of the leftists' favorite
recreations. Not to mention necessities...

Rand Simberg wrote:
On 6 Aug 2006 17:54:37 -0700, in a place far, far away,
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a
way as to indicate that:

Sorry, but we invaded Iraq for many reasons. One rhetorical slip up
doesn't change that.



And what "many reasons" are those? Because
we owed it to the Iraqi people? Because of Bush's
abiding need to enforce UN sanctions (but only
if they involve countries with lots of oil)?
9/11? An "Osama Got Away" distraction?

Because once Bush realized there weren't any "new facilities" making
weapons that could "attack us in 45 minutes," he had to come up with
other points to justify invasion.

Nonsense. There were many reasons to invade Iraq, stated prior to the
invasion. Just go read the 2003 State of the Union address.

But them, rewriting history is one of the leftists' favorite
recreations. Not to mention necessities...

No, it's more the case of the right hating context
even more than facts. WMD's and links to al-
Qaeda & bin Laden were the big reasons, with
everything else being at asterisk level:
http://www.news.uiuc.edu/news/04/0510war.html
http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/bush/iraqjust.htm
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security...ustifindex.htm

Do try to be better informed.

-BC

On 6 Aug 2006 18:16:20 -0700, in a place far, far away, "BC"
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a
way as to indicate that:

There were many reasons to invade Iraq, stated prior to the
invasion. Just go read the 2003 State of the Union address.

But them, rewriting history is one of the leftists' favorite
recreations. Not to mention necessities...

No, it's more the case of the right hating context
even more than facts. WMD's and links to al-
Qaeda & bin Laden were the big reasons, with
everything else being at asterisk level:
http://www.news.uiuc.edu/news/04/0510war.html
http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/bush/iraqjust.htm
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security...ustifindex.htm

Why would I even bother to link to these web sites? No doubt they've
cherry picked, since they're trying (foolishly) to prove a negative.

Do try to be better informed.

Physician, heal thyself.

Once again. Go read the 2003 SOTU.

Rand Simberg wrote:
On 6 Aug 2006 18:16:20 -0700, in a place far, far away, "BC"
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a
way as to indicate that:

There were many reasons to invade Iraq, stated prior to the
invasion. Just go read the 2003 State of the Union address.

But them, rewriting history is one of the leftists' favorite
recreations. Not to mention necessities...

No, it's more the case of the right hating context
even more than facts. WMD's and links to al-
Qaeda & bin Laden were the big reasons, with
everything else being at asterisk level:
http://www.news.uiuc.edu/news/04/0510war.html
http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/bush/iraqjust.htm
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security...ustifindex.htm

Why would I even bother to link to these web sites? No doubt they've
cherry picked, since they're trying (foolishly) to prove a negative.

http://www.news.uiuc.edu/news/04/0510war.html
A university study of the number of rationales
Bush used to justify the war

http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/bush/iraqjust.htm
Another study

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security...ustifindex.htm
A more detailed of the overall justifications used
by both Bush and Blair



Do try to be better informed.

Physician, heal thyself.

Once again. Go read the 2003 SOTU.

Go back to context -- the 2003 State of the Union
Address was but one of many, many statements
containing comments about Iraq made by Bush
and company. But regarding the 2003 SOTU, let
Bush's own words damn him:
(http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/...otu.transcript)

****
Twelve years ago, Saddam Hussein faced the prospect
of being the last casualty in a war he had started
and lost. To spare himself, he agreed to disarm of
all weapons of mass destruction.

For the next 12 years, he systematically violated
that agreement. He pursued chemical, biological and
nuclear weapons even while inspectors were in his
country.

Nothing to date has restrained him from his pursuit
of these weapons: not economic sanctions, not isolation
from the civilized world, not even cruise missile
strikes on his military facilities.

Almost three months ago, the United Nations Security
Council gave Saddam Hussein his final chance to disarm.
He has shown instead utter contempt for the United
Nations and for the opinion of the world.

The 108 U.N. inspectors were sent to conduct -- were
not sent to conduct a scavenger hunt for hidden materials
across a country the size of California. The job of the
inspectors is to verify that Iraq's regime is disarming.

It is up to Iraq to show exactly where it is hiding its
banned weapons, lay those weapons out for the world to
see and destroy them as directed. Nothing like this has
happened.

The United Nations concluded in 1999 that Saddam
Hussein had biological weapons materials sufficient to
produce over 25,000 liters of anthrax; enough doses to
kill several million people. He hasn't accounted for that
material. He has given no evidence that he has destroyed
it.

The United Nations concluded that Saddam Hussein had
materials sufficient to produce more than 38,000 liters
of botulinum toxin; enough to subject millions of people
to death by respiratory failure. He hasn't accounted for
that material. He's given no evidence that he has
destroyed it.

Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein
had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin,
mustard and VX nerve agent. In such quantities, these
chemical agents could also kill untold thousands. He's not
accounted for these materials. He has given no evidence
that he has destroyed them.

U.S. intelligence indicates that Saddam Hussein had upwards
of 30,000 munitions capable of delivering chemical agents.
Inspectors recently turned up 16 of them, despite Iraq's
recent declaration denying their existence. Saddam Hussein
has not accounted for the remaining 29,984 of these
prohibited munitions. He has given no evidence that he has
destroyed them.

From three Iraqi defectors we know that Iraq, in the late
1990s, had several mobile biological weapons labs. These
are designed to produce germ warfare agents and can be moved
from place to a place to evade inspectors. Saddam Hussein
has not disclosed these facilities. He has given no evidence
that he has destroyed them.

The International Atomic Energy Agency confirmed in the
1990s that Saddam Hussein had an advanced nuclear weapons
development program, had a design for a nuclear weapon and
was working on five different methods of enriching uranium
for a bomb.

The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein
recently sought significant quantities of uranium from
Africa.

Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to
purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear
weapons production.

Saddam Hussein has not credibly explained these activities.
He clearly has much to hide.

The dictator of Iraq is not disarming. To the contrary, he
is deceiving.

From intelligence sources, we know, for instance, that
thousands of Iraqi security personnel are at work hiding
documents and materials from the U.N. inspectors, sanitizing
inspection sites and monitoring the inspectors themselves.

Iraqi officials accompany the inspectors in order to
intimidate witnesses. Iraq is blocking U-2 surveillance
flights requested by the United Nations.

Iraqi intelligence officers are posing as the scientists
inspectors are supposed to interview. Real scientists have
been coached by Iraqi officials on what to say.

Intelligence sources indicate that Saddam Hussein has
ordered that scientists who cooperate with U.N. inspectors
in disarming Iraq will be killed, along with their families.

Year after year, Saddam Hussein has gone to elaborate
lengths, spent enormous sums, taken great risks to build and
keep weapons of mass destruction. But why?

The only possible explanation, the only possible use he could
have for those weapons, is to dominate, intimidate or attack.

With nuclear arms or a full arsenal of chemical and biological
weapons, Saddam Hussein could resume his ambitions of conquest
in the Middle East and create deadly havoc in that region.

And this Congress and the American people must recognize
another threat. Evidence from intelligence sources, secret
communications and statements by people now in custody reveal
that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including
members of Al Qaida. Secretly, and without fingerprints, he
could provide one of his hidden weapons to terrorists, or help
them develop their own.

Before September the 11th, many in the world believed that
Saddam Hussein could be contained. But chemical agents, lethal
viruses and shadowy terrorist networks are not easily contained.

Imagine those 19 hijackers with other weapons and other plans,
this time armed by Saddam Hussein. It would take one vial, one
canister, one crate slipped into this country to bring a day
of horror like none we have ever known.

We will do everything in our power to make sure that that day
never comes.

Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent.
Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their
intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike?

If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all
actions, all words and all recriminations would come too late.
Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not
a strategy, and it is not an option.

The dictator who is assembling the world's most dangerous
weapons has already used them on whole villages, leaving
thousands of his own citizens dead, blind or disfigured.

Iraqi refugees tell us how forced confessions are obtained:
by torturing children while their parents are made to watch.
international human rights groups have catalogued other
methods used in the torture chambers of Iraq: electric shock,
burning with hot irons, dripping acid on the skin, mutilation
with electric drills, cutting out tongues, and rape.

If this is not evil, then evil has no meaning.

And tonight I have a message for the brave and oppressed
people of Iraq: Your enemy is not surrounding your country,
your enemy is ruling your country.

And the day he and his regime are removed from power will be
the day of your liberation.

The world has waited 12 years for Iraq to disarm. America
will not accept a serious and mounting threat to our country
and our friends and our allies.

The United States will ask the U.N. Security Council to
convene on February the 5th to consider the facts of Iraq's
ongoing defiance of the world. Secretary of State Powell will
present information and intelligence about Iraqi's -- Iraq's
illegal weapons programs, its attempts to hide those weapons
from inspectors and its links to terrorist groups.

We will consult, but let there be no misunderstanding: If
Saddam Hussein does not fully disarm for the safety of our
people, and for the peace of the world, we will lead a
coalition to disarm him.

Tonight I have a message for the men and women who will keep
the peace, members of the American armed forces. Many of you
are assembling in or near the Middle East, and some crucial
hours may lay ahead.

In those hours, the success of our cause will depend on you.
Your training has prepared you. Your honor will guide you.
You believe in America and America believes in you.

Sending Americans into battle is the most profound decision
a president can make. The technologies of war have changed.
The risks and suffering of war have not.

For the brave Americans who bear the risk, no victory is
free from sorrow.

This nation fights reluctantly, because we know the cost,
and we dread the days of mourning that always come.

We seek peace. We strive for peace. And sometimes peace
must be defended. A future lived at the mercy of terrible
threats is no peace at all.

If war is forced upon us, we will fight in a just cause
and by just means, sparing, in every way we can, the
innocent.

And if war is forced upon us, we will fight with the
full force and might of the United States military, and
we will prevail.

And as we and our coalition partners are doing in
Afghanistan, we will bring to the Iraqi people food and
medicines and supplies and freedom.

Many challenges, abroad and at home, have arrived in a
single season. In two years, America has gone from a sense
of invulnerability to an awareness of peril, from bitter
division in small matters to calm unity in great causes.

And we go forward with confidence, because this call of
history has come to the right country.

Americans are a resolute people, who have risen to every
test of our time. Adversity has revealed the character of
our country, to the world, and to ourselves.

America is a strong nation and honorable in the use of
our strength. We exercise power without conquest, and we
sacrifice for the liberty of strangers.

Americans are a free people, who know that freedom is
the right of every person and the future of every nation.
The liberty we prize is not America's gift to the world;
it is God's gift to humanity.

We Americans have faith in ourselves, but not in
ourselves alone. We do not claim to know all the ways of
Providence, yet we can trust in them, placing our
confidence in the loving god behind all of life and all
of history.

May he guide us now, and may God continue to bless the
United States of America.

Thank you.
****

-BC

On 6 Aug 2006 19:09:53 -0700, in a place far, far away, "BC"
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a
way as to indicate that:

Rand Simberg wrote:
On 6 Aug 2006 18:16:20 -0700, in a place far, far away, "BC"
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a
way as to indicate that:

There were many reasons to invade Iraq, stated prior to the
invasion. Just go read the 2003 State of the Union address.

But them, rewriting history is one of the leftists' favorite
recreations. Not to mention necessities...

No, it's more the case of the right hating context
even more than facts. WMD's and links to al-
Qaeda & bin Laden were the big reasons, with
everything else being at asterisk level:
http://www.news.uiuc.edu/news/04/0510war.html
http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/bush/iraqjust.htm
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security...ustifindex.htm

Why would I even bother to link to these web sites? No doubt they've
cherry picked, since they're trying (foolishly) to prove a negative.

http://www.news.uiuc.edu/news/04/0510war.html
A university study of the number of rationales
Bush used to justify the war

http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/bush/iraqjust.htm
Another study

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security...ustifindex.htm
A more detailed of the overall justifications used
by both Bush and Blair

Again, you argue in futility, in attempting to prove a negative.
Don't you have a life?

Rand Simberg wrote:
On 6 Aug 2006 19:09:53 -0700, in a place far, far away, "BC"
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a
way as to indicate that:

Rand Simberg wrote:
On 6 Aug 2006 18:16:20 -0700, in a place far, far away, "BC"
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a
way as to indicate that:

There were many reasons to invade Iraq, stated prior to the
invasion. Just go read the 2003 State of the Union address.

But them, rewriting history is one of the leftists' favorite
recreations. Not to mention necessities...

No, it's more the case of the right hating context
even more than facts. WMD's and links to al-
Qaeda & bin Laden were the big reasons, with
everything else being at asterisk level:
http://www.news.uiuc.edu/news/04/0510war.html
http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/bush/iraqjust.htm
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security...ustifindex.htm

Why would I even bother to link to these web sites? No doubt they've
cherry picked, since they're trying (foolishly) to prove a negative.

http://www.news.uiuc.edu/news/04/0510war.html
A university study of the number of rationales
Bush used to justify the war

http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/bush/iraqjust.htm
Another study

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security...ustifindex.htm
A more detailed of the overall justifications used
by both Bush and Blair

Again, you argue in futility, in attempting to prove a negative.
Don't you have a life?

?? In addition to avoid dealing with evidence, you clipped
off my long excerpt of Bush's 2003 SOTU speech, which
you yourself said to look at. And who's trying to prove a
negative? I'm actually doing the opposit: I'm simply
disproving two false statements you made:

"There were many reasons to invade Iraq, stated prior to the
invasion. Just go read the 2003 State of the Union address.

But them, rewriting history is one of the leftists' favorite
recreations. Not to mention necessities... "

As I've said before, facts and especially context are
a right winger's worst enemies.

And speaking of having a life, it's time for my multitasking
Sunday evening to end.... Nighty night.

-BC

Rand Simberg wrote:
On 6 Aug 2006 17:54:37 -0700, in a place far, far away,
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a
way as to indicate that:

Sorry, but we invaded Iraq for many reasons. One rhetorical slip up
doesn't change that.



And what "many reasons" are those? Because
we owed it to the Iraqi people? Because of Bush's
abiding need to enforce UN sanctions (but only
if they involve countries with lots of oil)?
9/11? An "Osama Got Away" distraction?

Because once Bush realized there weren't any "new facilities" making
weapons that could "attack us in 45 minutes," he had to come up with
other points to justify invasion.

Nonsense. There were many reasons to invade Iraq, stated prior to the
invasion. Just go read the 2003 State of the Union address.

But them, rewriting history is one of the leftists' favorite
recreations. Not to mention necessities...

I read the post later in this thread. Bush goes on and on about Saddam
having material to make nerve gas and material to make other WMD. None
of these materials, nor the facilities to develop them into WMD have
been discovered. Instead you're all crowing about 500 cooroded (sp)
cannisters which even the DoD has stated "weren't the WMD we were
looking for."

Rand Simberg wrote:
On Sun, 23 Jul 2006 19:33:19 GMT, in a place far, far away, "Greg D.
Moore \(Strider\)" made the phosphor
on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

So, we did not find the WMDs that we went looking for.

Which is not the same things as no WMDs full stop.

Okay Rand, you have said that they found WMD. If so, then what were
they? Be specific. Provide a link if you have it but state exactly what
was found that were WMD.

Eric

Fred J. McCall wrote:
"enchomko" wrote:

:
:Fred J. McCall wrote:
: Mitchell Holman wrote:
:
: :Fred J. McCall wrote in
: :
: :
: : (Eric Chomko) wrote:
: :
: ::Rand Simberg ) wrote:
: ::: On 17 Jul 2006 10:49:28 -0700, in a place far, far away, "BC"
: ::: made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a
: ::: way as to indicate that:
: ::
: :::
: ::: Rand Simberg wrote:
: ::: On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 15:28:09 GMT, in a place far, far away,
: ::: "Bernard Spilman" made the phosphor on my monitor glow
: ::: in such a way as to indicate that:
: :::
: ::: Indeed, making stuff up is more the current administration's
: ::: specialty -- such as WMD
: :::
: ::: Which, it now turns out, existed.
: :::
: ::: Then where the **** are they? If they are there, then produce
: ::: them.
: :::
: :::
: ::: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...06/06/30/AR200
: ::: 6063001528.html
: :::
: ::: Those are old, degraded munitions from the Iran-Iraq
: ::: war.
: ::
: ::: They were part of what Saddam was obligated to turn in as fulfillment
: ::: of the UNSC resolutions. His continuing failure to do so was the
: ::: primary justification for his removal, per those resolutions.
: ::
: ::But they weren't WMD.
: :
: : They weren't? Did they change the definition?
: :
: ::: The stuff you keep under your sink is likely more
: ::: lethal now. Do you really think this motly collection of
: ::: long lost and misplaced, filled & unfilled leftovers from
: ::: a messy 20yr-old war are the same "WMD's" that Bush
: ::: and his people have been warning against since 2002?
: ::
: ::: No. I'm simply disputing the continuing lie that there were no WMDs
: ::: in Iraq.
: ::
: ::That wasn't a lie. You're a dupe.
: :
: : Ok, Eric, where's your threshold for how many have to be found in
: : order for them to constitute WMD? Or have you just adopted a
: : definition which says there could NEVER be WMD, no matter what is
: : found?
: :
: :
: :"It turns out that we have not found weapons
: f mass destruction."
: efense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, Oct. 4, 2004.
:
: How about the 500 or so that they've found?
:
:500 what?

500 chemical filled artillery rounds, dumbass. Do try to keep up,
won't you?

How old were they? Left over from 1988?


:Are you saying Rumsfeld didn't quote the above?

Did I say that? If you want to know what I'm saying, Eric, try
pulling your head out and actually reading it.


Backpeddling I see.

:You have the damn Sec. of Def. stating what we are saying and here you
:are saying he's wrong!

No, I'm saying that clots like you are ignoring the context in which
he said it.


No, you have Rumsfeld actually admitting that they were wrong. Sorry
you can't admit it yourself.

Eric

--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

On 8 Aug 2006 09:39:08 -0700, in a place far, far away, "enchomko"
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such
a way as to indicate that:

Yes, the question is moot. We found canisters. 500 corrodeded (sp)
unusable canisters. We have not yet found what we were told was there,
reinstigated facilities for the creation of WMD that could attack our
people in 45 minutes. Finding those (if they in fact exist) will
justify this war and it's death and carnage. Finding some unusable
cannisters will not.

Whether the war was justified is a completely separate issue. The
only issue here is whether or not there were WMDs in Iraq. There
were.

Even Rumsfeld said none were found. Why do you continue to lie?

Rumsfeld didn't mean that literally. He was referring to the expected
stockpiles of weapons.

Why do you stupidly accuse people of lying?